6 ms·

> regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? Because it is bad to lie? The memo says women

> regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? Because it is bad to lie? The memo says women have a harder time leading. That conclusion is not supported by any of his sources. He is judging their aptitude there, so I think dopamean's example is reasonable.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
I'm not sure it's a lie. What he actually says: > Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. Now, these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... At least one of the sources is reputable (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). So you can't really accuse him of lying.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced Where? It doesn't say anything about one sex's aptitude for leading there.
  - josteink 9y ago
    So you are effectively nitpicking words, single words, present or not in a cited source out of a 10 page reasonable critique of existing policy? And for what? To justify a guy getting fired? For real?
    - SamBam 9y ago
      Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. And it is a statement, whether or not it's introduced as a single word. To claim that this is "nitpicking a single word" is like saying that an article that includes the line "Scandinavians are taller, stupider, and blonder than other Europeans" is problematic only if we "nitpick a single word."
      - josteink 9y ago
        > Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. I'll admit that this may not follow directly from the linked research. So he doesn't have 100% scientific coverage. But who does? I see though that you really find this statement deeply problematic. Would you find it equally problematic if someone said "Men have a harder time showing empathy"? How about "white men"? Would you claim people needed "some damn solid evidence" to back those statements up? If not, may I ask why? Because this is by far the most common double standard I see when gender inequality is discussed, and seemingly everybody thinks that's just fine. Anyway: You seem to be nitpicking on a single aspect of a otherwise well structured, well sourced, 10 page long carefully laid out critique of existing systems in a internal memo. Your conclusion: that because of this tiny snafu in this otherwise good piece, he surely should be fired. Really? Honest question: Have you ever written a internal memo with this much effort put into it to back up your statements and arguments with scientific sources? I surely haven't. And I'm opinionated enough to write these kind of emails. I for one, am happy to work somewhere where we don't require people to get a PhD in their email-subject before being allowed to start a discussion. We call low barrier to entry. It supposedly increases diversity of thought.
        unityByFreedom 9y ago
        > Would you find it equally problematic if someone said "Men have a harder time showing empathy"? Showing "Men have a harder time showing empathy," or "women are less assertive" is a heck of a lot easier to study than "women have a harder time leading". The first two are personalities, and the third is a judgement of effectiveness of a job. Judging job effectiveness is highly subjective, and it is likely difficult to disentangle biological influences from societal influences for all three of these statements. The latter statement also takes direct issue with the Civil Rights Act, which says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, among other protected classes. It was a big deal to pass that law, and has withstood 50 years of society and litigation. So, we know (1) the author thinks some women have a harder time leading and has put this in writing, (2) this is not supported by any data, and (3) it's against the law to discriminate by gender when hiring. Given these three things, if he were to interview a woman in the future at Google, then she could point to the unproven claims in his memo, say he's sexist, and maybe win a lawsuit against the company. That's a liability for Google. Keeping him on would expose them to more risk.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    I mean "men often report higher assertiveness". OTOH, I found something completely unrelated that really left me speechless (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_leadership#Preference_for_a_boss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_leadership#...): "Women and men have been surveyed by Gallup each year concerning workplace topics, and when questioned about preferences of a female boss or a male boss, women chose a preference for a male boss 39% of the time, compared to 26% of men displaying preference for a male boss. Only 27% of females would prefer a boss of the same gender.[17][18] This preference, among both sexes, for male leadership in the workplace has continued unabated for sixty years, according to the survey results." Now, how should we call these people?
morgtheborg 9y ago
Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. I'll find the study if you'd like. And I think that's really what was missing from his piece; why do these differences exist and isn't it possible they are constructed rather than innate? He lists a few reasons he is convinced they are not, including their consistency across cultures, but I remain unconvinced all of his list of differences can be explained in this way. Particularly leading. There are way too many studies that show the biases women have to deal with in that regard and assuming they have no impact on behavior is silly.
- camgunz 9y ago
  > Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. Women aren't the problem in this scenario.
  - morgtheborg 9y ago
    That was my point. You can find sex "differences" but unless you somehow raised men and women separately, you'll be hard pressed to know which ones are innate and which ones are created through outside pressures. Not in all cases, of course, but in terms of behavior.
    - camgunz 9y ago
      No I get what you're saying. I'm saying the way you phrased it puts the onus on women. It's fairer to say, "men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive" because men have the problem, not women.
      - morgtheborg 9y ago
        And this is partially why people got so upset at that Googler. You understood what I said, but you're somehow displeased I didn't phrase it in the way you would have and are reading a direction of duty/responsibility that isn't in my comment nor in my thoughts.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

I'm not sure it's a lie. What he actually says: > Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. Now, these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... At least one of the sources is reputable (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). So you can't really accuse him of lying.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced Where? It doesn't say anything about one sex's aptitude for leading there.
- josteink 9y ago
  So you are effectively nitpicking words, single words, present or not in a cited source out of a 10 page reasonable critique of existing policy? And for what? To justify a guy getting fired? For real?
  - SamBam 9y ago
    Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. And it is a statement, whether or not it's introduced as a single word. To claim that this is "nitpicking a single word" is like saying that an article that includes the line "Scandinavians are taller, stupider, and blonder than other Europeans" is problematic only if we "nitpick a single word."
    - josteink 9y ago
      > Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. I'll admit that this may not follow directly from the linked research. So he doesn't have 100% scientific coverage. But who does? I see though that you really find this statement deeply problematic. Would you find it equally problematic if someone said "Men have a harder time showing empathy"? How about "white men"? Would you claim people needed "some damn solid evidence" to back those statements up? If not, may I ask why? Because this is by far the most common double standard I see when gender inequality is discussed, and seemingly everybody thinks that's just fine. Anyway: You seem to be nitpicking on a single aspect of a otherwise well structured, well sourced, 10 page long carefully laid out critique of existing systems in a internal memo. Your conclusion: that because of this tiny snafu in this otherwise good piece, he surely should be fired. Really? Honest question: Have you ever written a internal memo with this much effort put into it to back up your statements and arguments with scientific sources? I surely haven't. And I'm opinionated enough to write these kind of emails. I for one, am happy to work somewhere where we don't require people to get a PhD in their email-subject before being allowed to start a discussion. We call low barrier to entry. It supposedly increases diversity of thought.
      - unityByFreedom 9y ago
        > Would you find it equally problematic if someone said "Men have a harder time showing empathy"? Showing "Men have a harder time showing empathy," or "women are less assertive" is a heck of a lot easier to study than "women have a harder time leading". The first two are personalities, and the third is a judgement of effectiveness of a job. Judging job effectiveness is highly subjective, and it is likely difficult to disentangle biological influences from societal influences for all three of these statements. The latter statement also takes direct issue with the Civil Rights Act, which says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, among other protected classes. It was a big deal to pass that law, and has withstood 50 years of society and litigation. So, we know (1) the author thinks some women have a harder time leading and has put this in writing, (2) this is not supported by any data, and (3) it's against the law to discriminate by gender when hiring. Given these three things, if he were to interview a woman in the future at Google, then she could point to the unproven claims in his memo, say he's sexist, and maybe win a lawsuit against the company. That's a liability for Google. Keeping him on would expose them to more risk.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  I mean "men often report higher assertiveness". OTOH, I found something completely unrelated that really left me speechless (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_leadership#Preference_for_a_boss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_leadership#...): "Women and men have been surveyed by Gallup each year concerning workplace topics, and when questioned about preferences of a female boss or a male boss, women chose a preference for a male boss 39% of the time, compared to 26% of men displaying preference for a male boss. Only 27% of females would prefer a boss of the same gender.[17][18] This preference, among both sexes, for male leadership in the workplace has continued unabated for sixty years, according to the survey results." Now, how should we call these people?

morgtheborg 9y ago

Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. I'll find the study if you'd like. And I think that's really what was missing from his piece; why do these differences exist and isn't it possible they are constructed rather than innate? He lists a few reasons he is convinced they are not, including their consistency across cultures, but I remain unconvinced all of his list of differences can be explained in this way. Particularly leading. There are way too many studies that show the biases women have to deal with in that regard and assuming they have no impact on behavior is silly.

camgunz 9y ago
> Also, women DO have a harder time leading because their assertiveness is perceived significantly worse than similar assertiveness is men. Women aren't the problem in this scenario.
- morgtheborg 9y ago
  That was my point. You can find sex "differences" but unless you somehow raised men and women separately, you'll be hard pressed to know which ones are innate and which ones are created through outside pressures. Not in all cases, of course, but in terms of behavior.
  - camgunz 9y ago
    No I get what you're saying. I'm saying the way you phrased it puts the onus on women. It's fairer to say, "men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive" because men have the problem, not women.
    - morgtheborg 9y ago
      And this is partially why people got so upset at that Googler. You understood what I said, but you're somehow displeased I didn't phrase it in the way you would have and are reading a direction of duty/responsibility that isn't in my comment nor in my thoughts.